Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requested moves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pmanderson (talk | contribs) at 20:19, 23 December 2007 (→December 22, 2007). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page Requested moves is a process for requesting the retitling (moving) of an article, template, or project page on Wikipedia. For retitling files, categories and other items, see When not to use this page.

Please read the article titling policy and the guideline regarding primary topics before moving a page or requesting a page move.

Any autoconfirmed user can use the Move function to perform most moves (see Help:How to move a page). If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page. However, it may not always be possible or desirable to do this:

  • Technical reasons may prevent a move; for example, a page may already exist at the target title and require deletion, or the page may be protected from moves. See: § Requesting technical moves.
  • Requests to revert recent, undiscussed, controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted. If the new name has become the stable title, a requested move will be needed to determine the article's proper location.
  • A title may be disputed, and discussion may be necessary to reach consensus: see § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. The requested moves process is not mandatory, and sometimes an informal discussion at the article's talk page can help reach consensus.
  • A page should not be moved and a new move discussion should not be opened when there is already an open move request on a talk page. Instead, please participate in the open discussion.
  • Unregistered and new (not yet autoconfirmed) users are unable to move pages.

Requests are generally processed after seven days. If consensus to move the page is reached at or after this time, a reviewer will carry out the request. If there is a consensus not to move the page, the request will be closed as "not moved". When consensus remains unclear, the request may be relisted to allow more time for consensus to develop, or the discussion may be closed as "no consensus". See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions for more details on the process.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a move request as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of the move discussion to determine whether or not the contested close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines.

When not to use this page

Shortcuts

Separate processes exist for moving certain types of pages, and for changes other than page moves:

Undiscussed moves

Shortcuts

Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply:

  • No article exists at the new target title;
  • There has been no previous discussion about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and
  • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move.

Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Uncontroversial proposals

Only list proposals here that are clearly uncontroversial but require administrator help to complete (for example, spelling and capitalization fixes). Do not list a proposed page move in this section if there is any possibility that it could be opposed by anyone. Please list new requests at the bottom of the list in this section and use {{subst:RMassist|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}} rather than copying previous entries. The template will automatically include your signature. No edits to the article's talk page are required.

If you object to a proposal listed here, please relist it in the #Incomplete and contested proposals section below.

Incomplete and contested proposals

Ah Well, then delete. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 10:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposals

Purge the cache to refresh this page

December 22, 2007

Done - MPF (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - MPF (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold fire - nearly all pines are at English names; this should wait until all species in the genus are tackled together - MPF (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold fire - nearly all oaks are at English names; this should wait until all species in the genus are tackled together - MPF (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done - MPF (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 21, 2007

20 December 2007

  • Taoyateduta → Little Crow (Dakota chief) —(Discuss)— Little Crow is the primary historical name for this person; a quick google search lists about ten times as many results for little crow "sioux" as for taoyateduta; virtually all the references to this person in the article (except the lead) and virtually all historical works about him call him little crow (including the minnesota dept of transportation naming the 'little crow trail'); there is precedent for using translated names for first peoples if they are commonly known by their translated name; there is already a disamb page at little crow, but it awkwardly lists the bird and then little crow as an alt name for taoyateduta —poroubalous (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 19, 2007

December 18, 2007

December 17, 2007

Backlog

Move dated sections here after five days have passed.

I feel strongly that the Ta-Hia page should be moved to Daxia and appropriate adjustments made throughout the article (which I am happy to do - if you wish), for the following reasons: Daxia is the proper spelling according to the Pinyin system of romanising Chinese - the system used by far more people today than any other - including just about everyone in mainland China and people studying Chinese today. It has also become the standard for articles in the Wikipedia (often with the Wade-Giles version included as an alternative). Ta-hsia is the name according to the Wade-Giles system which is an old English system still in use in Taiwan and by older Western scholars, while Ta-hia is from the French E.F.E.O. system and, therefore, not appropriate at all in an English-language article (and even in that system "Ta-Hia" is incorrect). A link to the Daxia River can be inserted at the top of the page. By the way - this article used to be listed under Daxia - but was moved to its present position under the old French name. Also note the present Talk page is still headed with Daxia (Talk:Ta-hsia) - as it was before the move. John Hill (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dari (Persian) → Eastern Farsi —(Discuss)— Proposed move was because of ambiguity problems with Dari (Afghanistan). Moving to the name that linguists use for the language might help get away from those problems. Unfortunately, instead of discussing the move, an editor simply moved it to Dari (Persian) which introduces new ambiguities. There is an RFC begun on 25 Nov 2007, consensus seems unlikely. Admin supervision seems indicated. —Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=179831584"